2026 NHL Draft

[Topper]

There is only one unicorn in the draft that a rebuilding team should take first.

Verhoeff, 6'4", 212lb physical smart mobile D

Build from the net out.

L shot Zeev paired with R shot Keaton

[Picker of Cherries]

Stenberg falling to the Canucks with their third pick won’t surprise me. I still think McKenna is going first, but getting a huge, skilled RHD like Verhoeff is rare and probably the number two pick for many teams.

[donlever]

There is only one unicorn in the draft that a rebuilding team should take first.

Verhoeff, 6'4", 212lb physical smart mobile D

Build from the net out.

R shot Zeev paired with L shot Keaton

Yeah...been saying this since day 1.

Nothing but an echo chamber....

....then there were 2.

6 4 212 @ 17 for further clarity...

[Meds]

There is only one unicorn in the draft that a rebuilding team should take first.

Verhoeff, 6'4", 212lb physical smart mobile D

Build from the net out.

R shot Zeev paired with L shot Keaton

Yeah...been saying this since day 1.

Nothing but an echo chamber....

....then there were 2.

6 4 212 @ 17 for further clarity...

Buium isn’t a R shot. I’m assuming Topper had a moment of dyslexia.

I haven’t weighed in on that Donny because I’m split between McKenna and Verhoeff. I see the merit in building from the net out, but also see a player in McKenna that doesn’t come around very often either.

I’m taking both of them ahead of the guy from IKEA.

[donlever]

Yeah...he just flipped them accidently.

RS Verhoeff LS Buium.

The point is the same.

[Carl Yagro]

Good to have difference of opinions, no?

I stated my preference from day 1. That hasn't changed and the reasons for that just keeps looking better.

Hockey IQ and vision like that just doesn't come around often. Not a center, but see the almost instant impact similar players like Celebrini and Bedard have.

I absolutely see merit in Verhoeff and if McKenna is gone, personally I'd take him over the Swede. Too much potential not to.

I only mention Stenberg because it seems many here have been influenced by his WJC play and knowing the 2 Baldies, they probably go with this guy even if we had the #1 overall.

[donlever]

Not looking for agreement or movement toward the dark side.

Not what I meant at all.

Screenshot_20260124-124033_Instagram.jpg (118.15 KiB) Viewed 127 times

[Hockey Widow]

It's hard to not want to draft BPA by positional need but in reality that usually ends up bad. We desperately need scoring wingers so I keep going back to positional need. But I readily agree that that could be a recipe for a disaster. Draft BPA period. If that a DMan so be it.

[Ronning's Ghost]

Draft BPA period.

Are you a BPA = highest ceiling person, or a BPA = highest floor person, or does it vary by draft position, or by stage in the competitive cycle?

If it varies, where are you with the Canucks' first pick in 2026?

[theman]

I am taking McKenna 1 OA if had the choice but wouldn’t be upset if the Canucks took Verhoeff, that potential D pairing would be sick.

Just the team needs high end wingers desperately and I still think McKenna has the highest ceiling too.

IMO, the real debate starts if you are picking 2 OA, Verhoeff or Stenberg?

[donlever]

Where are you RG.

To many questions.

Make a statement instead.

[Ronning's Ghost]

Where are you RG.

To many questions.

Make a statement instead.

I'm just trying to make sure I understand other posters' positions.

Everyone knows I'm the poster on this board least knowledgeable about hockey; my statements aren't impactful.

But because I was specially invited...

The next couple years we need to hit a couple out of the park.

I've been thinking about that, and I'm not sure it's true. If they really are rebuilding, and are willing to endure 3 years of losing a lot and drafting high, and trading everything to accumulate other teams' draft assets, I suspect that as long as the players selected in the first round reach the median performance of their draft positions, that would enough to give the Canucks a decent multi-season window. That is to say, it's more important that JR/PA don't strike out than that they hit home runs. If that's true, then I would be in the "highest floor" camp for the Canucks' first round picks.

The test, of course, would be to go back over a relevant period long enough ago, find the median at each draft position, and then see whether posters here thought players of that calibre, combined with the good young assets they already have, would be enough to ice a roster with a reasonable shot. We'll see how interesting the rest of my Saturday night turns out to be.

[Hockey Widow]

Draft BPA period.

Are you a BPA = highest ceiling person, or a BPA = highest floor person, or does it vary by draft position, or by stage in the competitive cycle?

If it varies, where are you with the Canucks' first pick in 2026?

To me BPA is the player projected to have the highest ceiling regardless of position and regardless of where we are in our rebuild cycle. But as I say, it is often hard to do that when positionally you have so many needs.We have a good young D corp. We lack high end wingers. We have some centres but the jury is still out on what we have and who will be here 2-3 years from now so I count that as a positional need too. We have goalie depth but again several years out post Demko to know what we really have. To me the only position of strength we can currently count on is D. So I tend to shift away from Verhoeff only because I covet a high end winger.

But honestly I only rely upon rankings others put together as I am not a hockey scout. I get that RHD are a hot commodity and often difficult to get unless you draft them. So if Verhoeff is projected to be the best prospect in the draft and we get 1OA then yes, you select him.

I like Stenberg but also favour McKenna. None of the centres yet project to be BPA. with the Swedish touch in charge I think we should all brace that if we land the 1OA it may very well be Stenberg. Ask me in June.

[Ronning's Ghost]

We'll see how interesting the rest of my Saturday night turns out to be.

Below even my weak historical average. But maybe I generated some Sunday morning discussion fodder.

Recall my theory had been that if I went back over previous drafts, and identified the median player level by draft position, then if that median player was not good enough to form part of the core of a championship team, then it was worth swinging for the fences (prioritizing highest ceiling), but if that median player would be good enough, then it was better to take the safest possible pick, prioritizing highest floor. But as I reviewed the drafts, I found I doubted this approach. There was so much variability between draft position, and even more variation between draft years. Some years, there just weren’t that many good players available. (A result that may be worth bearing in mind when assessing any GM’s drafting record.)

But I did it, so I might as well present it to see if any of you notice something different. I went with the years 2001 through 2019, with the ideas being that more recent years would be more relevant to current scouting methods and talent pools, but we needed quite a few seasons to see what they had really drafted. With a few of these, it’s still not really clear what they will become.

Some of you will find no doubt excellent reasons to quibble with my rankings at the top and bottom of these lists, but remember, my theory was that the key part of the list is the middle, around the 9th, 10th, and 11th positions. If you think I have those wrong, just substitute your own choices when applying my proposed draft logic.

1OA
1. McDavid
2. Crosby
3. MacKinnon
4. Ovechkin
5. Stamkos
6. M.A. Fleury
7. Kovalchuck
8. P. Kane
9. A. Matthews
10. Tavares
11. J. Hughes
12. Dahlin
13. Nash
14. T. Hall
15. Nuge
16. Ekblad
17. Hirschier
18. E. Johnson
19. Yakupov

2OA
1. Hedman
2. Malkin
3. Doughty
4. Staal
5. Spezza
6. Barkov
7. Seguin
8. Bobby Ryan
9. Reinhart
10. Eichel
11. Landeskog
12. J. Staal
13. Svechnikov
14. Van Riemsdyk
15. Lehtonen
16. Laine
17. Kakko
18. R. Murray
19. N. Patrick

3OA
1. Toews
2. Draisaitl
3. Huberdeau
4. Bouwmeester
5. Duchene
6. Heiskenen
7. Jack Johnson
8. Bogosian
9. Turris
10. Horton
11. Strome
12. Dubois
13. Drouin
14. Kotkaniemi
15. Dach
16. Barker
17. Gudbranson
18. Galchenyuk
19. Svitov

4OA
1. Makar
2. Pietrangelo
3. Backstrom
4. R. Johansen
5. Bennet
6. Byram
7. Marner
8. Tkachuck
9. S. Jones
10. A. Ladd
11. S. Weiss
12. A. Larrson
13. Zherdev
14. Eastvander
15. Pitkanen
16. Pouliot
17. T. Hickey
18. Reinhart
19. Pool-party

5OA
1. Price
2. Wheeler
3. Kessel
4. Vanek
5. Rielly
6. Lindholm
7. Hanifin
8. Pettersson
9. B. Schenn
10. Whitney
11. Niederreiter
12. Hayton
13. Turcotte
14. Strome
15. L. Schenn
16. Alzner
17. Zherdev
18. Juolevi
18. Dal Colle

So, if we tried to apply my original (suspect) reasoning, we might say that (assuming there will be 3 top 5 picks over the next 3 seasons) at first or second overall, the Canucks might be better off with the high floor safe pick, but after that, if they hope to move the needle, they should focus on ceiling.

Another thing that struck me was how few surprises there were at the top. More than half the time, the GMs were able to correctly identify the best 2, or at least, arguably the best 2, players available. Maybe it would be interesting to see how often GMs succeed at identifying the BPA at each draft order rank. [I'm scrambling for a term that makes it clear I don't mean player position.]

Perhaps a different pattern emerges if we extend the analysis deeper into the draft, but that’s all I feel like doing tonight.

[Topper]

Several years ago I did an analysis of odds of a draft player playing , I believe 250 or 300 NHL games and after the top ten of the 1st round it becomes a bit of a crap shoot with odds significantly decreasing the later in the draft you go.

As RG notes, the top 2 spots are secure, though the player may not fulfill the pre draft hype, they will have serviceable careers.

There are of course outliers every year and some feel that increasing the number of 2nd or 3rd round picks gives you better odds at one of those outliers